Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition

[2BizE]

On 9/24/2021 at 8:32 PM, webbles said:

The likelihood that Jewish markers would last from 600BC to now in the Polynesians is really slim.  I already discussed that in an earlier post.  If you assume that the Lehites did not come into an empty continent but instead were a small group intermingling with a much larger group (which I believe and is how I understand the Book of Mormon), it will be nearly impossible to find any markers from Lehi by now.  You would need ancient DNA from the 600BC to 1AD and you would also need to be looking in the correct location where Lehites would be.

Thank you.

[Teancum]

On 9/23/2021 at 3:41 PM, smac97 said:

Again, I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing. 

YOu keep saying this to FD but how do you know he has not done this? Many have.  I have.  I did for many years. As an apologist and defender then as one whose faith in the LDS gospel was unraveling.  For years I tried to make it work. Ultimately, at least for me, the LDS truth claims and so much other things about the church came up greatly lacking.  It is clear to me and for me that, at least at this point, the LDS Church is just one of may trying to tell people what some God wants but really has no better claims to be correct than any other.  I am open to changing my conclusions which is one reason why I still spend time here.  

Don't assume those who conclude the LDS Church is not true, and maybe in many ways harmful, have not given it a fair hearing.  Honestly that comment is rather insulting to many who still grieve over their conclusions to one degree or another.

[Teancum]

On 9/23/2021 at 4:06 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I can think of a few of my Polynesian friends who might think this matters. Large island communities migrated to the US (Utah/Missouri) precisely because they believe they have Lamanite heritage. Why do they believe that? Because that's what they were taught in church.

I find it fascinating how so many people are willing to just ignore inconvenient truths or pretend they are insignificant or don't matter at all.

Here's the thing, IF the church makes a truth claim like Polynesians being descended from Lamanites then it seems reasonable that the church back up that claim. Some things can be taken as a matter of faith, but asking people to take things on faith, when there is good evidence against that claim, just seems like a recipe for disappointment .

Just ask Gina Colvin about this.

[rodheadlee]

On 9/23/2021 at 8:32 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

It's long been known that the Islands of the Pacific were populated by a seafaring people migrating out of South East Asia not the America's.  Further studies have only doubled down on this reality.  All scientific specialties including DNA, Archeology, Palaeobotany, Paleolinguistics to name just a few, all support this SE Asian migration.  Other then some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD and the sweet potato and gord, see here there is little to no reason we should refer to Pacific Islanders as Laminates.

A new study just released in Nature seen here adds further support for this migration from south east Asia and not from the Americas.

The evidence seems overwhelming that Pacific Islanders are not descendants of Lehi, in direct conflict with LDS tradition.  The church seems to have supplanted the actual culture of the Pacific Islanders with one found in the Book of Mormon of which this island population had no connection to.

What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it.  Otherwise is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?

More Here

I dispute that for the simple fact the wind and the current goes the other direction. You can put a message in a bottle and throw it down off the coast of Central or South America and it will wind up in Polynesia.

[smac97]

On 9/26/2021 at 11:32 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

Again, I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing. 

You keep saying this to FD but how do you know he has not done this?

I am surmising based on the contents and omissions of his gripe-of-the-week threads, which usually come heavy-laden with conclusory denunciations of the Church, but with no meaningful assessment of scholarly and/or apologetic treatments of the topics.

On 9/26/2021 at 11:32 AM, Teancum said:

Many have.  I have.  I did for many years. As an apologist and defender then as one whose faith in the LDS gospel was unraveling.  For years I tried to make it work. Ultimately, at least for me, the LDS truth claims and so much other things about the church came up greatly lacking. 

I got off my mission in 1995, when the Internet was just beginning to have broad social uses.  I was on ZLMB when it arose, then FAIR, then this board.

Like you, I have spent many years as "an apologist and defender."  Unlike you, however, I have found the Restored Gospel to by very workable.  To be sure, a lot of Latter-day Saint apologetics includes all sorts of concessions.  "We don't know (or don't know much) about..."  "Our leaders were human and made/make mistakes..."  That sort of thing.  Nevertheless, I think there is plenty of room for Latter-day Saints to be both substantially informed about the doctrines and history of the Church and continue in faithful devotion and adherence.  In fact, I think my experience in studying the Gospel, which includes listening to and interacting with what skeptics and critics have to say, has substantially strengthened my faith.  I have a more clear-eyed perspective on things now, including the weaknesses and frailties exhibited by the Lord's servants and followers.  All the more reason to cherish basic principles like the perfect example of Jesus Christ, His Atonement, faith, repentance, obedience, forgiveness, and so on.

I have spent many years listening to critics and opponents of the Church, partly as a means of countering the risk of confirmation bias.  I have found ample grounds to accept, and exercise faith in the tenets of the Restored Gospel.  Many of the critiques of my faith are predicated on assumptions I do not hold or share, on conjecture and guesswork, on flimsy evidence and reasoning.  

I have previously laid out my assessment of such things here: Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith

And here:

Quote

Quote

Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am:  What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record?  Is there any evidence?  And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything.  Just evidence in support of.

Yes, there is evidence.  Quite a bit, IMO.  The sufficiency and probative value of the evidence is very much in dispute, but the existence of the evidence is pretty hard to deny.

Putting aside "evidence" from the Spirit, I would first point to the text overall.  Its origins need to be accounted for.  I don't think Joseph Smith could have written it at all, let alone in the timeframe involved.  

Second, I would point to the statements of the Witnesses, and to the credbility of those witnesses (starting, perhaps, with Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses).

Third, I would point to evidences within the text.  Its complexity.  Its narrative structure.  Linguistic elements.  It's internal chronological and geographic consistency.  Hebraisms.  Chiasmus.  Lots and lots of good stuff in here.

Fourth, there are some evidences which have some sort of interaction with or facet touching on archaeology.  See, e.g. this article: Five Compelling Archeological Evidences For the Book of Mormon.  The "five evidences" are:

• Metal Plates
• The Nahom Altar
• Cement in Mesoamerica
• The Seal of Mulek
• Barley in the Americas

Of these, the Seal of Mulek seems to be the one that I think critics would be most likely to construe as "archaeological" (read: artifactual) evidence (though the Nahom Altar seems pretty hard to ignore).  But both of these are Old World artifacts, and I think critics want artifacts from Mesoamerica.

Fifth, I would point an interested party to the Book of Mormon Central website: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/

Sixth, I would point an interested party to Jeff Lindsay's "Book of Mormon Evidences" page: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Seventh, I would point an interested party to FAIR's page about evidences for the Book of Mormon: https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon

Eighth, I would point an interested party to the following essays:

• The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)
• I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)
• The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)
• Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)

These are the resources that immediately come to mind.

Much of what is termed "evidence for the Book of Mormon" is better characterized as "assumptions regarding and interpretations of evidence for the Book of Mormon."

That said, I will repeat something I have said many, many times on this board: Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

For myself, I have found the truth claims of the Restored Gospel to be fascinating and substantively true, and also quite reasonable and defensible.

On 9/26/2021 at 11:32 AM, Teancum said:

It is clear to me and for me that, at least at this point, the LDS Church is just one of may trying to tell people what some God wants but really has no better claims to be correct than any other.  I am open to changing my conclusions which is one reason why I still spend time here.

I'm glad to hear it.  I don't think this board has much utility in terms of helping someone ascertain the validity of the fundamental truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  There are many "upstream" assumptions that affect our assessment of "downstream" evidences, and I think this board focuses almost entirely on "downstream" things.

On 9/26/2021 at 11:32 AM, Teancum said:

Don't assume those who conclude the LDS Church is not true, and maybe in many ways harmful, have not given it a fair hearing. 

I'm not assuming.  I am concluding based on repeatedly watching Fair Dinkum start threads heavily laden with negative assumptions and conclusions that do not interact with substantive scholarly/apologetic materials that are readily and freely available.

On 9/26/2021 at 11:32 AM, Teancum said:

Honestly that comment is rather insulting to many who still grieve over their conclusions to one degree or another.

I would hope that you not take offense at a comment that is not directed at you.

Meanwhile, I've lost count of the number of times I've had my intelligence and/or integrity disparaged because I have reached different conclusions from the ones you have found.  I posted this anecdote last year:

Quote

Quote

I'd be delighted if the apologists could engage well enough to change some minds...but I don't think that'll happen. 

It's happening all the time.  Apologists "change some minds" on a regular basis.  Those who are implacably hostile toward the Church will remain unconvinced, but that's hardly surprising.

But in the end, you more or less have a point.  Apologists aren't really trying to "change some minds."  They are presenting secondary/supplemental arguments for issues that are fundamentally and primarily presented as spiritual / religious truth claims.  We don't want people to join the Church because "apologists" have "change{d} some minds."  We want members and investigators to walk primarily and predominantly by faith.

So if apologists aren't "chang{ing} some minds," perhaps that's because they are not really trying to.  “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”  Austin Farrer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (1965), 26.

Quote

But it's worth pointing out the opposite will continue to happen--apologists will turn into critics.

And some critics will turn into apologists.  Paul and Alma are well-known examples.  

There really isn't symmetry here.  It's much easier to tear something down than to build it up.  So the apologists have a markedly more difficult job.  being a critic is easy by comparison.

...

Earlier this year I went to lunch with a long-time friend ("Tom") who has become extremely hostile to the Church.  We ended up speaking for several hours.  The conversation remained civil, but we still spoke plainly about our respective positions.  Tom repeatedly insisted that his departure from the Church was "not a choice." 

After a while, I said something like "Tom, it seems like your position about the Church is that those who are like you, who have researched and investigated its history and doctrines, have only two options.  The first option is stay in the Church by becoming a party to its lies and deceits and frauds.  Profound dishonesty, and perhaps even some evil, is required for this, since remaining in the Church after learning of its history requires members to continue to advance the teachings of the Church, which are based on lies.  The second option is to leave the Church."

Tom thought for a moment, and then said "Yes.  That's right.  Those are the only two options."

I then asked "Then how do you account for me?  I've studied the Church quite a bit.  Nothing you've said during the last few hours is new to me.  Are you saying I am therefore profoundly dishonest in staying in the Church and continuing to have a testimony of it?"

Tom said "No."

I responded "I appreciate that.  But again, if there are only two options, to leave or else to stay and become a liar, and if I am not a liar, and if I haven't left, then how do you account for me?"

He did not respond.

We talked a bit longer.  Before we parted we hugged (in a manly way), and expressed our mutual affection and continuing friendship.  I concluded with "I hope you will in time consider the possibility that there is a third option.  That it is quite possible to know about the doctrines and history of the Church, including its errors and controversies, and still have a very strong testimony of its divinity and truthfulness.  There is still a choice to be made."

I could provide a "gish gallop" list of people who are very well-versed in the doctrines and history of the Church, and remain quite faithful and observant.  I know a number of such people personally (I even count myself as one).  I will go out on a limb and say that this does say something substantial.  There is ample room for a person to have an informed, and still faithful and observant, perspective on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2021 by smac97

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I dispute that for the simple fact the wind and the current goes the other direction. You can put a message in a bottle and throw it down off the coast of Central or South America and it will wind up in Polynesia.

Well kind of.

But I'm assuming that you are aware of the purpose of Sails right and how they can assist in going counter to currents by tacking?

Not to mention that literally every scientific field supports the West to East migration and not the other way around right?

Edited September 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am surmising based on the contents and omissions of his gripe-of-the-week threads, which usually come heavy-laded with conclusory denunciations of the Church, but with no meaningful assessment of scholarly and/or apologetic treatments of the topics.

I got off my mission in 1995, when the Internet was just beginning to have broad social uses.  I was on ZLMB when it arose, then FAIR, then this board.

Like you, I have spent many years as "an apologist and defender."  Unlike you, however, I have found the Restored Gospel to by very workable.  To be sure, 

a lot of Latter-day Saint apologetics includes all sorts of concessions.  "We don't know (or don't know much) about..."  "Our leaders were human and made/make mistakes..."  That sort of thing.  

I have spent many years listening to critics and opponents of the Church, partly as a means of countering the risk of confirmation bias.  I have found ample grounds to accept, and exercise faith in the tenets of the Restored Gospel.  Many of the critiques of my faith are predicated on assumptions I do not hold or share, on conjecture and guesswork, on flimsy evidence and reasoning.  

I have previously laid out my assessment of such things here: Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith

And here:

That said, I will repeat something I have said many, many times on this board: Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

For myself, I have found the truth claims of the Restored Gospel to be fascinating and substantively true, and also quite reasonable and defensible.

I'm glad to hear it.  I don't think this board has much utility in terms of helping someone ascertain the validity of the fundamental truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  There are many "upstream" assumptions that affect our assessment of "downstream" evidences, and I think this board focuses almost entirely on "downstream" things.

I'm not assuming.  I am concluding based on repeatedly watching Fair Dinkum start threads heavily laden with negative assumptions and conclusions that do not interact with substantive scholarly/apologetic materials that are readily and freely available.

I would hope that you not take offense at a comment that is not directed at you.

Meanwhile, I've lost count of the number of times I've had my intelligence and/or integrity disparaged because I have reached different conclusions from the ones you have found.  I posted this anecdote last year:

Thanks,

-Smac

So you're saying you are not a fan and here I was starting to believe we were becoming fast, close friends. 

Smac, You're link to what you have described to as my gripe of the week or as I prefer to call Fair Dinkum's Greatest Hits are a series of issues and questions that I have and are not intended as scholarly and/or apologetic treatments of the topics, that's why I post them here so that I might be able to draw upon the experience and knowledge of those who have been able to navigate these waters before me.    I apologize for annoying you with my questions and invite you to withdraw from feeling the need to participate in any future post, aka question, I might make in the future.  So I'm guessing that I shouldn't expect a Christmas Card either, right? Bummer.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[rodheadlee]

38 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Well kind of.

But I'm assuming that you are aware of the purpose of Sails right and how they can assist in going counter to currents by tacking?

Gentlemen don't sail to weather. People in modern sloops avoid it. I just don't see one of those Caverns being able to sail to weather very good at all.

PS I have about thirty thousand miles under my keel Offshore, most of it in the Pacific. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

28 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Well kind of.

But I'm assuming that you are aware of the purpose of Sails right and how they can assist in going counter to currents by tacking?

You should get a more accurate chart of the currents and winds too. I recommend Jimmy Cornell's World cruising routes.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours ago, Teancum said:

Just ask Gina Colvin about this.

I don't really have her on speed dial  

[Fair Dinkum]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Gentlemen don't sail to weather. People in modern sloops avoid it. I just don't see one of those Caverns being able to sell the weather very good at all.

PS I have about thirty thousand miles under my keel Offshore, most of it in the Pacific. 

I'm jealous, I'm a lover of sailing also but don't have as much open ocean experience as you.  Mostly in the safety of Sydney Harbor when I'm there.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So you're saying you are not a fan and here I was starting to believe we were becoming fast, close friends. 

I actually think you are a cool dude.  I am "not a fan" of your relentlessly negative faultfinding, particularly as I think you are not meaningfully interacting with or addressing the substantive scholarly/apologetic materials that are readily and freely available.

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Smac, You're link to what you have described to as my gripe of the week or as I prefer to call Fair Dinkum's Greatest Hits are a series of issues and questions that I have and are not intended as scholarly and/or apologetic treatments of the topics, that's why I post them here so that I might be able to draw upon the experience and knowledge of those who have been able to navigate these waters before me.

Okay.  Calm has just this morning been taking me to task for apparently doing with Covid what you are apparently doing to the Church. 

I think there is a big difference in terms of how we can and ought to approach the two topics.  Covid can and should have more to do with empirical data.  And we can and ought to question and challenge apparent governmental overreach and authoritarianism.

In terms of investigating the Church, I think this skeptical/adversarial approach won't work.  That's just not the way the Lord set things up.  If the basic claims of the Restored Gospel are what they are presented to be, if they are "true," then I don't think ascertaining that will work through a predominantly empirical/skeptical/critical/adversarial paradigm.  Instead, I think the Lord has set things up quite differently.  We are to read, study, ponder, pray, and so on.  Questions about various issues can and will inevitably arise.  However, the answers to the principal questions will not be found through skepticism, but through faith and hope and personal revelation.

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I apologize for annoying you with my questions and invite you to withdraw from feeling the need to participate in any future post, aka question, I might make in the future.  So I shouldn't expect a Christmas Card either, right? Bummer.

I apologize for having given offense.

Look, I love the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.  A lot.  A lot.  I believe them to be "true" in a D&C 93:24 kind of way.  That does not mean that we have a pristinely perfect and complete understanding and commande of the Restored Gospel.   "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)  And the Church, being made up of and led by flawed and imperfect people, is far from perfect.  But expecting to find perfection in the Church is akin to expecting to find only healthy people in a hospital.

Regarding your posts, I see them less as "questions" and more like loaded questions.  That is, negative/hostile conclusions with a question mark on the end.  By way of analogy, if you were a family member, and if you came to me with an ongoing list of gripes and criticism and barbed comments, and loaded questions that disparage and find fault with my wife, I think you would understand that I - as her husband - would find it my duty and obligation to defend her reputation and honor, particularly when your statements are unfair, unfounded, etc.  This is not to say that my wife is without her faults or frailties.  Rather, it is to say that I have known my wife for a very long time.  I have found her to be overwhelmingly good and decent and kind and well-intended.  I find her to be what she professes to be.  You would, of course, be free to criticize and faultfind my wife to your heart's content.  Free Speech and all that.  But I hope you can understand that I am likewise at liberty to rebut your characterizations and assessments of her.

So it is, I think, with the Church.  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Eph. 5:25.)  It is good, very good even.  I even believe it happens to be both good and what it claims to be.  So I will defend it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't really have her on speed dial  

Her views on it are readily available online.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm jealous, I'm a lover of sailing also but don't have as much open ocean experience as you.  Mostly in the safety of Sydney Harbor when I'm there.

We banged into the trade winds and into the waves for 4 days going around the West into Cuba to Grand Cayman. It was four days of misery and prayer. I just can't imagine doing it for  thousands of miles going to an island you have never even seen or know it's location. 

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, rodheadlee said:

We banged into the trade winds and into the waves for 4 days going around the West into Cuba to Grand Cayman. It was four days of misery and prayer. I just can't imagine doing it for  thousands of miles going to an island you have never even seen or know it's location. 

Yeah, especially in a boat with no windows and only a few rocks for some light.  from wherever the brother of Jared and his party departed to wherever they landed.  All aboard!

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I actually think you are a cool dude.

You've obviously never met me 🙂

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am "not a fan" of your relentlessly negative faultfinding, particularly as I think you are not meaningfully interacting with or addressing the substantive scholarly/apologetic materials that are readily and freely available.

I try to see things from others perspectives  and were I you I would probably share your opinions of me that you have expressed here.  But I would also kindly ask that you try to see things from my perspective.  The church was my life the very prism through which I viewed the world. It defined every aspect of my life.  I have dedicated my life to the church.  And then the wheels of that bus fell off.  So while I can understand you, can you understand me?  Have you ever considered what it might be like to go through a faith reconsideration? (You would probably call it a faith crisis)  While I feel I have landed on my feet, it's not a fun journey losing ones faith and having to build up from scratch a meaningful life in my 50's no less outside of the Mormon paradigm.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Calm has just this morning been taking me to task for apparently doing with Covid what you are apparently doing to the Church. 

I think there is a big difference in terms of how we can and ought to approach the two topics.  Covid can and should have more to do with empirical data.  And we can and ought to question and challenge apparent governmental overreach and authoritarianism.

In terms of investigating the Church, I think this skeptical/adversarial approach won't work.  That's just not the way the Lord set things up.  If the basic claims of the Restored Gospel are what they are presented to be, if they are "true," then I don't think ascertaining that will work through a predominantly empirical/skeptical/critical/adversarial paradigm.  Instead, I think the Lord has set things up quite differently.  We are to read, study, ponder, pray, and so on.  Questions about various issues can and will inevitably arise.  However, the answers to the principal questions will not be found through skepticism, but through faith and hope and personal revelation.

Its true that I am skeptical of all church truth claims because of my journey and because I now know that pretty much everything I had built my life upon was not true. Literally every conclusion or belief I held has had to be reinterpreted.  So yes I come here with a skeptics eye on church claims, fool me once that's on you,  fool me twice that's on me.  I won't be fooled again.  But I don't come here seeking converts, I have come seeking answers, attempting to see if there might be a way back.  But I am way past study, pray & ponder and honestly regaining belief after the journey I've taken is probably not even possible and yet I am here trying albeit in a manner true to myself. 

During the short time since my first post here I have learned a lot.  I've gained an appreciation for how some posters have been able to maintain belief despite knowing the same difficulties I struggle to find believe in.  Perhps I am not only wasting everyone else's time but my own as well because I just do not find that church believable.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I apologize for having given offense.

You didn't offend me, you disappointed me.  I thought we had reached some kind of threshold of mutual respect, I know that was dumb of me, but it's were I was.  So to realize I was mistaken, again that's on me.  I completely misread our interactions. It stings to have you refer to my posts as Gripes.  But I get it you're not the first one here to pigeonhole me.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Look, I love the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.  A lot.  A lot.  I believe them to be "true" in a D&C 93:24 kind of way.  That does not mean that we have a pristinely perfect and complete understanding and commande of the Restored Gospel.   "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)

I completely respect your faith and ability to hold on to it. Which is why I have always enjoyed your participation in my posts despite the fact that we share little in common perspectives.  You're an honest interlocutor and I've always enjoyed that about you.  I know where you are coming from.  While not as bright and erudite as you, I give it my best shot in my attempts.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 And the Church, being made up of and led by flawed and imperfect people, is far from perfect.  But expecting to find perfection in the Church is akin to expecting to find only healthy people in a hospital.

I've never expected perfection but neither did I expect to find a well meaning but very human organization either. It's true that for me the emperor has no clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

We banged into the trade winds and into the waves for 4 days going around the West into Cuba to Grand Cayman. It was four days of misery and prayer. I just can't imagine doing it for  thousands of miles going to an island you have never even seen or know it's location. 

And yet that is what the physical evidence says they did.

[rodheadlee]

46 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

And yet that is what the physical evidence says they did.

That's not written in stone. I think in the end they will find migrations from both directions. Nobody sails the wrong way around the world.

Edited September 27, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Fair Dinkum]

26 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

That's not written in stone. I think in the end they will find migrations from both directions. Nobody sails the wrong way around the world.

There has been.  DNA studies pin first contact in which DNA was assimilated into the Polynesian gnome down to the 13th century AD

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

DNA studies pin first contact in which DNA was assimilated into the Polynesian gnome down to the 13th century AD

Correct, a single DNA study, published last year, detected DNA from a specific area of South America in a specific region of the Pacific and dated its presence to c. AD 1200.

Did the researchers detect any North American DNA, and if not, why not?

And where in the study is 'first contact' mentioned?

Edited September 28, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Fair Dinkum]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Correct, a single DNA study, published last year, detected DNA from a specific area of South America in a specific region of the Pacific and dated its presence to c. AD 1200.

yup

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did the researchers detect any North American DNA, and if not, why not?

No they did not. Cuz no contact had been made by North American indigenous natives with Polynesians

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And where in the study is 'first contact' mentioned?

Can you name any other studies that confirm contact? If not this is the first confirmed contact 

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

There has been.  DNA studies pin first contact in which DNA was assimilated into the Polynesian gnome down to the 13th century AD

DNA studies actually don't pin the first contact.  You can have contact without DNA sharing   Also, it doesn't prove which direction the travel was.  It could have been Polynesian who traveled to the Americas and picked up a man/woman or it could have been Native Americans who made it to Polynesia and left a man/woman.

All the DNA studies do is confirm that contact was made by at least the 13th century.  We might find more DNA that push it back further or we might find other archeological evidence that pushes it back further.

[mrmarklin]

There is no definitive evidence of eastward migration only. Read this:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl

[Fair Dinkum]

11 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

There is no definitive evidence of eastward migration only. Read this:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl

Thor Heyerdahl only showed that a western migration was possible NOT that it actually took place. 

[Fair Dinkum]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

DNA studies actually don't pin the first contact.  You can have contact without DNA sharing   Also, it doesn't prove which direction the travel was.  It could have been Polynesian who traveled to the Americas and picked up a man/woman or it could have been Native Americans who made it to Polynesia and left a man/woman.

All the DNA studies do is confirm that contact was made by at least the 13th century.  We might find more DNA that push it back further or we might find other archeological evidence that pushes it back further.

Please re-read what I posted. "DNA studies pin first contact in which DNA was assimilated into the Polynesian gnome down to the 13th century AD"  Of course we have no evidence of any prior contact and one might have taken place, but the first contact of which we have evidence for took place in the 13th century.